Braintree Mews Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People were involved in the assessment of their needs, and support was provided where needed to maximise their involvement. A member of staff was specifically allocated to inform people about the service and what Braintree Mews could provide and people were fully included in the assessment process. People were positive about the food at Braintree Mews and people’s nutritional needs were included within care plans. However, monitoring charts such as food and fluid or repositioning, required improvement. The registered manager was aware they needed to work more closely with local services to improve outcomes for people and that work had begun. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us they were fully involved in the assessment process.

The registered manager told us people were fully assessed prior to admission to Braintree Mews. People and relatives were given an opportunity to view the home and a designated person gave them all the information they needed to make an informed choice.

A variety of assessment tools were used during the assessment process and these were reviewed regularly by staff. However, some of these assessments tools when reviewed had not always been updated to reflect people’s current needs. Whilst people’s health conditions were recorded within care plans there was minimal guidance for staff about these conditions or how they might affect people’s day to day life.

People and relatives we spoke with were positive about the care they received at Braintree Mews. A person told us, “Food is excellent and I choose what I want for lunch.” Numerous compliments were recorded in the service about people's care and treatment being very positive. We observed the mealtime experience for people which was positive. Tables were well presented and people were offered a choice of food and drink and where they wanted to eat. A person told us, “I prefer to eat in my room and I don’t always eat the main course so I will order 2 starters. I do not want to sit with people I do not choose to sit with but they accommodate this.”

Staff supported people with food and drink and we saw people being offered a variety of drinks throughout the day. A hydration and snack 'bar was in the lounges where people could help themselves to drinks and snacks such as fruit, crisps and biscuits. We spoke with the Chef who was fully aware of people’s dietary needs and regularly spoke with people to gain their feedback.

As stated in the safe section, more work was needed to ensure people identified of being at risk from dehydration, malnutrition or pressure sores had accurate records to identify any potential concerns early. However as stated in our risk quality statement the registered manager told us this was now being monitored daily by senior staff. The registered manager and deputy were working with senior staff to ensure any concerns were picked up quickly. During a daily meeting with senior staff, we observed the senior staff discuss everyone using the service, any accidents or incidents or health professional visits.

Most people were happy with the staff team supporting them. A person who was at the home having a respite stay told us they were very happy there. They added they have had a good experience, and they felt very well looked after.

The registered manager acknowledged the staff team were very new and work was needed to ensure they were fully supported. A deputy manager had been recruited whose main role was to coach staff and ensure they were working and knowledgeable about best practice. Most staff we spoke with were happy with their support. A staff member told us, “We have more support since the deputy started.” However, we did receive feedback from staff where they felt communication and support could be improved.

Healthcare professionals had raised some concerns about the service and did not initially find that actions were being taken to address them. However, additional processes were put in place by the service and communication and exchanges of information was now improved. These communication processes needed to embed to ensure consistency of information was exchanged.

The service was new and so was the staff team, this was recognised by the service and they understood staff required additional support so quality care could be provided to people consistently. Staff meetings, daily meetings, supervision and lessons learned session were all in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people.

People and or their representatives were involved in regularly monitoring their health, including health assessments and checks where appropriate and necessary with health and care professionals. A relative told us, “They are very proactive in getting support if [family member] needs it.” However, we did receive feedback from relatives in relation to people’s health conditions where relatives were not always updated about people’s appointments or kept updated in relation to people’s health conditions.

Staff attended regular meetings to ensure they had all the information they needed to support people and involve them with their health. Staff completed referrals to health professionals such as the GP, dietician, the speech and language team and district nurses. As stated in previous quality statements, a deputy manager was overseeing this area to support staff.

People’s records contained information about any health conditions and referrals people might need to promote good health. As stated previously in the report, more detailed information was needed in care records, so staff had a good understanding of the health conditions people lived with. Staff received training to support them to recognise early signs and symptoms of deteriorating health. The registered manager told us further training was required as the staff team were new and they recognised more support was needed. We observed a yoga class on the day of our visit and regular exercise classes were held to support people with their physical health.

Overall people and their relatives were positive about experiences and numerous compliments were captured. One read, “In the few weeks [family member] has been at the Mews their anxiety levels have dropped, well-being has improved and in [family members] words, their mental health is much better.”

The service was committed to improving outcomes for people and responded to concerns raised honestly and proactively. Additional action was taken to ensure monitoring records and care plans captured any changes to people’s health so relevant professionals could be contacted.

People told us they were offered choices about their care and support and staff gained their consent prior to delivering care.

Staff had received training in relation to the Mental capacity act and Deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack the mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS application had been made where required. The service assessed people’s capacity to ensure any specific decisions were made in people’s best interests and relevant representatives consulted. We discussed sensor equipment used to minimise people’s risks of falls and the registered manager told us they would be put in place for people who lacked capacity to make this decision independently.